Film on beastiality praised as "elegant" "lyrical"

  • Thread starter Thread starter deb1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

deb1

Guest
sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-121sundance,0,6997847.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

This is horrible. A documentary about bestiality has been made. Now, it isn’t that I think such subjects should be taboo. We can certainly talk about sexual deviancy and how to treat those who engage in such practices.This film though sounds as though it is glorifying such acts.

Please, please tell me that this isn’t going to become acceptable.😦

"Zoo," premiering before a rapt audience Saturday night at Sundance, manages to be a poetic film about a forbidden subject, a perfect marriage between a cool and contemplative director (the little-seen “Police Beat”) and potentially incendiary subject matter: sex between men and animals. Not graphic in the least, this strange and strangely beautiful film combines audio interviews (two of the three men involved did not want to appear on camera) with elegiac visual re-creations intended to conjure up the mood and spirit of situations. The director himself puts it best: "I aestheticized the sleaze right out of it."

Honestly, I am not an end of the world nutcase but it is hard not to wonder where our civilization is headed.😦
 
I personally think this country (and probably the world) is going the way of the Roman Empire.
 
I’m forty. When I was a teenager of about 13 or 14, I can remember girls who were simply friends holding hands because there was no sexual connotation in our minds. We weren’t trying to entice males or exploring our sexuality, we were simply showing affection.

When I hit my late teens to early twenties, I can recall watching Oprah and thinking how unfair the homosexuals featured on her show had it. Afterall they couldn’t help themselves from being attracted to the same sex. I even had a cousin who was lesbian tell me that if she didn’t have to be gay she wouldn’t be, it was causing her to much heartache. So, I had a lot of emotional sympathy for the gay rights movement.

Fast forward to recent years. Two preteen girls holding hands no longer means an innocent affection for a friend. It can mean that the young ladies are lesbian or that they are attempting to attract males or that they are exploring their sexuality.

If what is acceptable behavior can change in just under thirty years for homosexual, how can we not think that there is a possibility that bestility will be acceptable to our grandchildren’s generation.

Afterall, a person who is into bestility could-just like homosexuals- claim that they are being persecuted for an urge that they cannot help.

I listened to a radio talk show once in which the host pretended that he had a sexual affection for his sister. He went on and one about the emotions that he felt and how no one had the right to judge him. Several callers phoned in to express their support for his behavior. At the end of the show he expressed his surprise and shock that people would support him. His goal was to show that Americans can be manipulated through their emotions to support immorality and sadly he succeded.😦

I, sincerly , pray this doesn’t happen with bestility.
 
where there are laws on the books against this practice, their focus and enforcement depends on abuse and harm of the animals involved, as obviously we could not be talking about 2 consenting adults here. where is PETA when you really need them?
 
Sundance and Hollywood is hitting new lows… Dakota fanning, and now this…

we need more censorship again…
 
puzzleannie said:
where there are laws on the books against this practice, their focus and enforcement depends on abuse and harm of the animals involved, as obviously we could not be talking about 2 consenting adults here. where is PETA when you really need them?
Click to expand...
Peter Singer, the ethics professor at Yale?(might be Harvard), wrote an article a few years back claiming that bestility was not evil. I can’t remember his exact words though.

I hope this isn’t something that kids are learning at Ivy League Universities.😦
 
Jennifer123 said:
sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-121sundance,0,6997847.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

““Zoo,” premiering before a rapt audience Saturday night at Sundance, manages to be a poetic film about a forbidden subject, a perfect marriage between a cool and contemplative director (the little-seen “Police Beat”) and potentially incendiary subject matter: sex between men and animals.”
Click to expand...
And the people who were called ‘alarmist’ when they warned that homosexuality becoming accepted mainstream would lead to bestiality as acceptable can now say “see I told you so”.

By allowing this movieto be a part of the sundance festival Hollywood, the generator of American culture, is condoning bestiality.

Will Rosie step up and condemn this with her big mouth?
 
deb1 said:
Peter Singer, the ethics professor at Yale?(might be Harvard), wrote an article a few years back claiming that bestility was not evil. I can’t remember his exact words though.

I hope this isn’t something that kids are learning at Ivy League Universities.😦
Click to expand...
Wasn’t Peter Singer the same clown who wrote that “useless eaters” (i.e., the handicapped) should be euthanized? And he’s an ethics professor!? :bigyikes:
 
RNRobert said:
Wasn’t Peter Singer the same clown who wrote that “useless eaters” (i.e., the handicapped) should be euthanized? And he’s an ethics professor!? :bigyikes:
Click to expand...
Yes, same person, and I am pretty certain that he is the ethics professor, but I will have to check to make certain.
 
deb1 said:
Yes, same person, and I am pretty certain that he is the ethics professor, but I will have to check to make certain.
Click to expand...
I think if his suggestion concerning “useless eaters” is ever put into practice, then he should be the first in line!
 
deb1 said:
Afterall, a person who is into bestility could-just like homosexuals- claim that they are being persecuted for an urge that they cannot help.
Click to expand...
They would have a hard case to prove so. Homosexuals in an adult relationship have a consenting partner. With an animal, there is not consenting partner and therefore it will always be illegal.
(and rightly so)
 
rayne100 said:
They would have a hard case to prove so. Homosexuals in an adult relationship have a consenting partner. With an animal, there is not consenting partner and therefore it will always be illegal.
(and rightly so)
Click to expand...
That is the usual argument stated. But, consent does not make an action good. The civil law often contradicts natural moral law. The notion that consenting to an evil act is civilly acceptable is an abomination just like bestiality.

The same goes for acts like euthanasia that claim one may bind another to murder them in the name of mercy. Consent is not enough to justify evil acts.
 
rayne100 said:
They would have a hard case to prove so. Homosexuals in an adult relationship have a consenting partner. With an animal, there is not consenting partner and therefore it will always be illegal.
(and rightly so)
Click to expand...
DISCLAIMER: I AM PLAYING DEVIL"S ADVOCATE AND DO NOT ACTUALLY HOLD THE VIEWS THAT I AM ABOUT TO PUT FORWARD

A person could make the claim that the dog is not a pet but a companion. A companion should have rights to be happy.

How does anyone know that the animal doesn’t want to have a sexual relationship with a human?

Believe it or not Peter Singer put forward something very similar.😦 :mad:
 
By the way if you want to read Singer’s weird justification for bestility here is his article Heavy Petting. It is morally sick but not graphic. We should probably hold our noses and read this article just so that we understand and can attempt to defeat such thinking if it tries to become mainstream.😦

nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.asp
 
rayne100 said:
They would have a hard case to prove so. Homosexuals in an adult relationship have a consenting partner. With an animal, there is not consenting partner and therefore it will always be illegal.
(and rightly so)
Click to expand...
They may have recently changed the law, but it is not illegal in Washington State. A man recently died there while having sex with a horse.
komotv.com/news/archive/4158101.html

I’m not sure why it isn’t illegal, and I think there are a handful of states where this activity isn’t illegal.

Beastiality is a violent act against an unconsenting “partner” and I am suspicious that this type of deviant behavior wouldn’t eventually affect humans, say in the form of rape. It seems the pathology is the same.
 
deb1 said:
By the way if you want to read Singer’s weird justification for bestility here is his article Heavy Petting. It is morally sick but not graphic. We should probably hold our noses and read this article just so that we understand and can attempt to defeat such thinking if it tries to become mainstream.😦

nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.asp
Click to expand...
He makes the case for those who support contraception, homosexual acts and all the rest. It is a natural continuation of the poor moral reasoning that passes for rational thought these days.
 
First off, it’s not Hollywood, it’s an independent filmmaker. Which means people too weird for Hollywood:eek: .

Second, when I hear the word “lyrical,” I think, “Expensively shot and boring.”

The word “Elegant”, similarly, means “nothing really moves, but it’s well-filmed.”

Ed Wood films could be described as “elegant and lyrical.”

So not only is it vile, it’s probably not even a good movie. Of course. You don’t have to make a good movie, as long as you’re offensive enough. I say it’s time for some heavy censorship. If they interpreted the Second Amendment the way the do the First, we’d all have the Bomb by now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top